5 Dumbest Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories on the UN

he Republican Party successfully scuttled the prospect of the United States joining a United Nations treaty that would establish international standards for the rights of disabled people. The vote took place on December 4. The treaty "urges nations to strive to ensure that the disabled enjoy the same rights as their fellow citizens," the Associated Press reports. But the GOP "objected to taking up a treaty during the lame-duck session and warned that the treaty could pose a threat to U.S. sovereignty."

The GOP's opposition to the treaty was reinforced by right-wing media freaking out over yet another United Nations effort. The pattern is well-established: take a UN treaty the US is thinking of signing, twist the language to make it seem nefarious, and then gin up hysterical opposition to it based on non-existent provisions in the treaty.

So here are five ways the right has jumped the shark over the UN.

1. Disability Treaty 'Undermines American Sovereignty'

The latest example of the conservative freakout over the UN is the disability treaty being pushed around the world. Right-wing media have followed the playbook on this issue. On the conservative National Review's Web site, writer Betsy Woodruff claimed that the disability treaty, named the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, would "potentially undermine American sovereignty." A writer at the libertarian Cato institute said that if the US signed the treaty, it would take "away our national sovereignty on questions of how best to accommodate the disabled."

None of this is true. As Media Matters notes, "U.S. law already meets the standards the treaty requests." And the New York Times notes that "the treaty would have no power to alter or overrule United States law, and any recommendations that emerge from it would not be binding on state or federal governments or in any state or federal court."

2. Agenda 21

"Agenda 21" is one of many United Nations documents that lay out a vision for the future. In this case, Agenda 21 is the name given to the UN's non-binding plan for sustainable development. But given its clumsy name, it's no surprise that right-wing fear-mongers would gin up hysteria over the plan.

Former Fox News star Glenn Beck has taken the lead on this, routinely sounding false alarms on Agenda 21. In June 2011, Beck said on Fox News that after "reading through the pages [of Agenda 21], it becomes clear 'sustainable development' is just a really nice way of saying 'centralized control over all of human life on planet Earth.'" Beck also said, referring to the UN vision, that "once they put their fangs into our communities, they'll suck all the blood out of it, and we will not be able to survive. Watch out."

Now, Beck has published an entire book on the subject. His fictional book envisions a horrific future in which Agenda 21 has overtaken America.

3. UN Arms Trade Treaty

The global arms trade is deadly, violent and assists human rights abusers. So it makes sense that the UN would want to develop a treaty framework on this problem. But right-wing media, predictably, have tried to scuttle the prospect of the US signing on. They have taken to Fox News to air baseless theories about what the treaty may do.

On Fox News, Dick Morris said that President Obama was going to use the UN treaty to impose gun control in the U.S. This line of reasoning was boosted by Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt, who said on Fox that the treaty "would completely work against what the Second Amendment is intended to do."

What Fox has aired, however, has zero to do with the reality of the treaty--and even the conservative Heritage Foundation agrees. "I don't regard that as within the bounds of possibility in the United States and secondly, because that is not what the text says," said one Heritage fellow, referring to the right-wing meme that the UN treaty would lead to limitations on the Second Amendment.

4. John Bolton's Crusade

John Bolton, a right-wing foreign policy voice in the GOP, deserves his own category for freaking out about the UN. In 1994, he told an audience that "there is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States."

These comments sparked controversy when George W. Bush nominated Bolton to serve as US ambassador to the United Nations. But Bolton did not stop just questioning why the UN existed. He also suggested that it wouldn't matter if the UN building lost physical stories. "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," Bolton said. Since leaving his post as ambassador, Bolton has continued to raise doubts about the UN.

5. Reparations for Climate Change

In December 2011, the UN convened in Durban, South Africa to try and hammer out a deal over climate change. The deal stipulated that countries were "to begin a new round of talks on a new agreement in the years ahead," noted the Washington Post. There were some other provisions as well hammered out in Durban, including the creation of a global fund set up to help poor countries tackle climate change.

But Fox News wasn't having any of that, despite the fact that climate change threatens the long-term viability of the planet. On Fox and Friends, legal analyst Peter Johnson claimed that the agreement in Durban would set up an "international climate court of justice." There is no mention of such a court in the final draft of the UN agreement. Johnson also claimed that the agreement mandates that the West pay "reparations" for climate change -- a claim that is entirely misleading.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and their News Corp. minions have done more damage to the United States than we may ever know. Like a major oil spill, the fallout from their villainy will continue to infect and damage future generations long after their rotten carcasses have gone to dust.

We must make it our #1 goal to remove these lunatics from our government. They do not deserve the seats they occupy or to be in OUR government, making up stupid theories and destroying our government. Make it our #1 goal to kick them out.

We must make it our #1 goal to remove these lunatics from our government. They do not deserve the seats they occupy or to be in OUR government, making up stupid theories and destroying our government. Make it our #1 goal to kick them out.

With this attitude in mind, I'm sure you would agree that We need to round up these people just like Hitler did and put them in camps and make lampshades from their skinless, dead bodies! How dare anyone criticize or think independently of the great and mighty United Nations! How dare they!!! WHEN DID THE ROCKEFELLER/ELITE FOUNDED UNITED NATIONS BECOME "OUR GOVERNMENT?"

@Dumbledorf: Your sappy sarcasm aside, it would be obviously more democratic if all nations were representatives in an international entity like the UN. It is equality among nations to participate in world decision-making. All the more the UN General Assembly should have binding votes, not nonbinding. To ignore this and belch out right-wing refuse (garbage) that the U.S.'s sovereignty would be threatened-although all other nations sensibly don't see it that way with regard to their UN membership-is utterly pathetic. There isn't a threat, but an illusion that the U.S. is too superior enough to responsiblely contribute to world cooperation among equals. This empire of capital, despite its democratization, can very well be accused of harboring myths of "True American supremacy." It should be tossed into the dustbin of history with other supremacy myths. Loose the superiority complex.

I'll say it yet again, the OMLY way we are going to get the morons out of office id to start voting for candidates that do not belong to the two corporate owned major parties! There are seven recognized political parties in America, and the five lesser known never get any coverage in the mainstream media, therefore never have a chance of advancing their agendas. The so-called presidential "debates" only included the DEmoncrat and Rethuglican candidates,why? Because the sleeping masses don't even know there are five more choices, and that's how the two bought and paid for major parties want it. We, as a collective people united have to DEMAND election reform, stop watching Fox News or any other Fow channels, and start thinking for ourselves. Otherwise nothing will ever change....EVER!!!!!

@Rick Mason: Yeah, the idea of moving beyond the two tencencies of one party, into a party or coalition with the opposite idealogy as a base. But it will be one hell of a struggle, but I think inevitable.

@Barbara K: You are correct. Out of utter necessity, one way or another, they have to go. They are a potential threat to other nations since they're making warped threats toward the United Nations itself, i.e., they are potentially threatening every other country.

There have been conspiracy theories surrounding the UN since it was created. That was more than 60 years ago. Perhaps it's just me, but I would think that any competent conspiracy would have accomplished something by now.

The Koch brothers, and the John Birch society that their father sponsored, have been spinning this for that long. It goes with the McCarthyism scare. It's ironic that they don't believe in birth control, because what is scaring them is the huge population of the world.

A balance is what is always needed. GOP vs Dems, Right vs Left, etc. It's the Yin and Yang of life.

However, when it comes to the U.N., their track record is overwhelmingly and factually negative against the U.S. Conspiracies or not, sovereignty notwithstanding, we should NOT being paying more than our share to sustain an organization with members filled with such vitriol against the U.S.

The U.S. borrows money and then gives it away to many of these nations - madness. If my next door neighbor was spilling out hateful words toward me, throwing rocks over my fence, and hindering my lifestyle in the neighborhood, what would you say to me if I borrowed $10,000 to give to my neighbor for his home improvements ? !

A balance is what is always needed. GOP vs Dems, Right vs Left, etc. . . . we should NOT being paying more than our share to sustain an organization with members filled with such vitriol against the U.S. .

. . .

The U.S. borrows money and then gives it away to many of these nations - madness. !

It is madness to suggest that there is any "balance" in the respective behavior of the Rs and the Ds . . . the only play of the Rs is their way or not / pure blackmail.

It is also madness to suggest that we can "lead" the world by refusing to build any institutional links, or that we can "go it alone" on the force of our superior military and self-importance. As a country we do NOT pay our share, either to the UN or in foreign aid to those whose natural resources we have happily gobbled up at the cost of extraction.

But I fear that even a treaty couldn't fix the mental disabilities that seem to afflict certain of our national population right now.

Let's see; I took down a hollow tree that had a dead branch over my neighbor's garage; it was expensive to do, but saved a load of money in future repairs on his garage, and of course also it could have fallen in my yard; we've had wind storms in the years since then. He isn't that warm and friendly to begin with (putting round-up, that is, agent orange on the cracks in his driveway and then power-spraying that onto my lawn), but he hasn't caused the kind of feuds that I would have expected from that kind of personality. I did this just because I'm nice, and I have to live with me. Don't you want to live with you?

I can remember Pope John Paul saying that America was generous, and that is a good thing. Our generosity isn't perfect, but there are some places that do appreciate it. Just because there are a few who don't shouldn't mean that we stop helping others. Or do you mean that the U.N. is trying to empower girls and women, and raising the marriage age around the world so that the population doesn't double and kill us all?

moafu, there are specific reasons why the U.S. has received criticism and policies against it: the U.S. military, and the government's refusal to cooperate with other countries on some very serious issues. That is reason enough. Same with Israel.

Balance?!?! What we need is to start paying attention to the other five political parties in this country!!!! The Demoncrats and Rethuglicans only care about their rich constituants.Some of the other parties are actually concerned about all of us! Wake up and turn of American Idol and pay attention!

@moafu@yahoo.com: You kinda sound like you're playing the U.S. in the role of victim. Given U.S. foreign policy, i.e., invasions/occupations, bombings, and economic and military aid given to foreign elites, and that its been going on for over 100 years, you do protest too much. The U.S.'s democratization has to evolve onto another mature, level, while getting rid of the instruments that support empire. Lose the superiority complex and the victim act.

"1. Disability Treaty 'Undermines American Sovereignty'" This is a particularly ironic joke, since there is not even a whisper in the media about the TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (TPP) (The Pacific Rim Free Trade Agreement) which ACTUALLY does undermine American Sovereignty. Under Article X-Regulatory Coherence, it requires participating nations to conduct regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) when developing covered regulatory measures that exceed a threshold of economic impact established by a Party, to assist in designing a measure to best achieve the Party’s objective. Article X(3)(1)(b) states

An RIA should include the following elements:(1) a consideration of whether, for all aspects of the planned regulatory measure, there is a need to regulate to achieve the policy objective or whether an objective can be met by non‐regulatory and/or voluntary means, consistent with domestic law;(2) an assessment, to the extent feasible and consistent with domestic law, of the costs and benefits of each available alternative, including not to regulate, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify and monetize;

In a nutshell, before we pass laws that affect foreign corporations, we have to consider how those laws might financially affect those foreign corporations (BTW, they can SUE us in a international corporate court if they don't like our law!)

This seems like double-talk, but the best that I can figure out (given the typos in your comment), is that

1. They already could sue us in international court before this law, and

2. If domestic regulations and policies are in place, that should be sufficient, but if domestic regulations are not in place, then regulations can be applied (such as anti-pollution, labor laws, etc.). and

3. Cost/benefits that apply to domestic laws still could be argued in an international court (such as allowing pollution and no labor laws).

Is this a loophole than you can sail all the shipping through? First, they would have to look at both the regulations and costs; very clearly, with the profits that some businesses have been making, it would be very difficult for them or their countries to argue poverty, but very easy to argue for more regulation of pollution and more safety and labor laws, and this treaty would begin this process.

The question, of course, is: will any international body have the motivation to enforce any anti-pollution and safe labor laws? I would think that all the coastal cities will be underwater and all the farms turned into deserts before anything would be enforced, but we shouldn't be paranoid just because they try to write a law to merely suggest that such laws might be a good idea.

This seems like double-talk, but the best that I can figure out (given the typos in your comment),

readerz, the 'typos' (spacing errors) are in the original, this was taken from the leaked treaty.

No international court currently has power over a sovereign nations' health asn safety regulatory laws. What is worse, is that this kangaroo 'court' will be made up of jurists chosen from the corporations they are supposed to decide cases about. It is an inherent conflict of interest. Further, if you read the WHOLE TPP, you would see that corporate profits come prior to national sovereignty.

Glad to see this mention of the TPP, MJnevetS. I was thinking that all this hysteria about sovereignty could be usefully, and more accurately, applied to the struggle we must have against the imposition of this terrible treaty. Take a page from their playbook?

You have a good point. Most likely the conspiracy things floating around are inaccurate. There is one thing that the UN has accomplished however.

They have fooled the U.S. government (Congress and Rep. & Dem Administrations over the years) to pay more money for the operations of the U.N. than its proportionate share. Many nations have yet to pay their share of anything.

As a foreign resident, I've never understood the naked, almost hysterical hostility towards the UN from the American right, especially the Libertarians and Tea-baggers.Could somebody clue me in on this (rationally and clearly please, not some hysterical reactionary rant; I really want to know).Might it be -my own guessology here- that the very idea and presence of a UN undermines the extant false sense of "American exceptionalism" that seems to justify so much invasion and interference elsewhere in the world as in "Pax Americana or else!"? Just askin'.

Read the history of the Koch brothers and their father, one of the founders of the John Birch Society. It's all there. It has nothing to do with policy or philosophy really, but with a fear that America might have to live with the rest of the world, fueled by a fear commies and a love of isolationism. (Instead of trying to prevent war in the U.N.).

My theory is that they think that America "won" World War II without anybody else, and then we should be able to reap the "spoils of war" around the world. They can't stand the "Marshall Plan" or anything else that brought Europe back from the destruction, nor can they see that it was the economic hardship after World War I that brought us World War II. Add to that their fear of "commies" and any kind of social help; they really think that it is better to let people starve and let crime go up.

But these right-wingers have, since World War II, caused so much more hardship around the world with exploited labor that we are just about up to the pre-World War II times.

Read the history of the Koch brothers and their father, one of the founders of the John Birch Society. It's all there. It has nothing to do with policy or philosophy really, but with a fear that America might have to live with the rest of the world, fueled by a fear commies and a love of isolationism. (Instead of trying to prevent war in the U.N.).

My theory is that they think that America "won" World War II without anybody else, and then we should be able to reap the "spoils of war" around the world. They can't stand the "Marshall Plan" or anything else that brought Europe back from the destruction, nor can they see that it was the economic hardship after World War I that brought us World War II. Add to that their fear of "commies" and any kind of social help; they really think that it is better to let people starve and let crime go up.

But these right-wingers have, since World War II, caused so much more hardship around the world with exploited labor that we are just about up to the pre-World War II times.

Good comment and summation, some which I'm very aware and am reminded of regularly to this day.More food for thought -and research.

That may be a part of it...although it may be a masquerade for ultra-paranoidism(is that a word?). Many of them have huge stories of the "New World Order"--don't even get the conspiracy theorists started on that one. I suppose, like Jon Stewart said last night, they are afraid that the troops in the blue helmets are going to storm their houses with no weapons and force the people who home-school their kids to teach them that the cavemen didn't ride on dinosaurs like the Flintstones and that the world wasn't made in 6 days. However, I'm more inclined that they will be forced to actually take a long look at themselves and realize that they aren't who or what they see themselves to be and it scares them. Ever gone to a high school reunion? If you aren't really sure of how much you and the world around you has changed, go to one. It's the same principle. We lose our sense of self-importance in the U.N. because it's one nation, one vote, not our nation, right or wrong as these fools seem to believe.

Concerning the Right's concern over sovereignty when it comes to ratification of the Disability Treaty: Where the hell was/is this concern when entering into such things as NAFTA and all the "free trade" agreements? The Dems and the Repubs have systematically surrendered our sovereignty everytime they have entered into one of these "agreements". Capital is free to flow across boarders electronically and US workers are free to watch their jobs follow.

I've been hoping for a clear-cut 'black & white' issue for which I could write a really dastardly 'Letter to the Editor' about the GOP. Well, this is it ! This one reveals the mentality of these sub-cretins like nothing else could. I strongly urge everyone to give them both barrels.

The "Bible" (in quotes because they have crossed out a lot of it) really says:

Proverbs 17:5, "He that despiseth the poor, reproacheth his Maker; and he that rejoiceth at another man's ruin, shall not be unpunished."

Psalm 107:41, "And he helped the poor out of poverty: and made him families like a flock of sheep... Who is wise, and will keep these things; and will understand the mercies of the Lord?"

About the "others:" Leviticus 19:33-34, "If a stranger dwell in your land, and abide among you, do not upbraid him: But let him be among you as one of the same country: and you shall love him as yourselves: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

The "Magnificat," Luke 1:46-55, especially, "...He hath showed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away..."

Matthew 25:32-46, "And all the nations shall be gathered together before him [the U.N.?] and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. ...[to those who are blessed of the Lord:] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; Naked, and you covered me; sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me..."

I don't get the resentment toward the UN from Republicans. What are they afraid of? Especially in the first one where we already comply. Is it just ignorance? Who wouldn't want to spread a message of trying to treat as equals the disabled?

It isn't Republicans in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, Nelson Rockefeller, Charles Percy, Jacob Javits, or Mark Hatfield. It is Birchites and cold warriors like Oliver North, and the crowd of Southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond and his ilk who populated the Congress as beaten segregationists after Lyndon Johnson pushed through voting rights and civil rights legislation. After all, the United Nations allows all those 'furriners' to vote as though they are equal ... some of us just can't hack that. Why, they might even run for President ... or something and start acting as 'uppity as US!?!

You seem to be very level headed and openminded in your comments. That's to your credit. You mentioned "hysterical" reactions against the U.N., and I would like to encourage you to check the U.N. website for voting records and spot read any of the speeches by the nations that vote against what the U.S. votes for.

You will see concrete facts on "hysterical" reactions. The speeches of many of those representatives against democratic nations are "crazed" if not hysterical.

BTW: I vote Democrat most of the time, and not a Rt. winger. Absolutely, I see the factual data coming out of the U.N., whereby the majority of the representative nations spew out hatred against the U.S. from the podium. If they dislike the U.S. so much, they should reject our aid and go home, and send someone who will engage in dialogue and not diatribe.

Moafu, check out the speech by staunch US ally Canada given by Foreign Minister John Baird on the Palestinian vote last week if you want to see a good example of hysterical reaction. Interesting to note that unlike all other speakers, Baird got not one note of applause. Crazed indeed was Baird, and everybody knew it.As for other nations' reactions to the US, in case you hadn’t noticed, they have good reason to dislike America (and increasingly, Canada, which used to be much less offensive). The myth of America is beautiful; the reality, not so much.

You seem to be very level headed and openminded in your comments. That's to your credit. You mentioned "hysterical" reactions against the U.N., and I would like to encourage you to check the U.N. website for voting records and spot read any of the speeches by the nations that vote against what the U.S. votes for.

You will see concrete facts on "hysterical" reactions. The speeches of many of those representatives against democratic nations are "crazed" if not hysterical.

BTW: I vote Democrat most of the time, and not a Rt. winger. Absolutely, I see the factual data coming out of the U.N., whereby the majority of the representative nations spew out hatred against the U.S. from the podium. If they dislike the U.S. so much, they should reject our aid and go home, and send someone who will engage in dialogue and not diatribe.

A United Nations treaty that establishes the rights of MENTALLY disabled people was voted down last night. Consequently, the rights of Glenn Beck, Dick Morris, John Bolton,and others will not be protected. These people did not read the text carefully.

The GOP/TP should be afraid of UN - they could (should) go after Cheney/Rove (and others) for "war crimes" (and torture) so the GOP/TP are following the maxim: A good defense is a good offense (hope I got that right) - to try to put the UN on defensive.

All this "hoopla" by GOP/TP = smoke screen (but they fool very few now) to hide their real agenda: Kill USA democracy, the middle/lower class (etc) and keep "in the $$" with help of a few: Koch etc

UN Urban Myth debunked.I know UN haters won't let the facts get in the way, but here they are:The United States is assessed for the regular budget at the ceiling rate of 22 percent, which in 2006 was $423,464,855 of the total $1,924,840,250. This works out to be a contribution of about $1.42 per American citizen, according to 2006 census data. Japan, the second largest contributor to the regular budget at 19.47 percent, pays $374,727,900 or about $3.94 per citizen in comparison.

I wish we could just ignore the doings of these out of their minds politicians, but we can't because they are creating more unstable people with their misinformation. Beck alone will be responsible for the occupation of many mental wards in the near future, and he may be one of the first of its residents.

RE: the cost per person on the UN budget.It does not matter that Americans pay $1.42 and Japan citizens pay more.

What matters is that 1. the % paid by the U.S. is too much since it is only one nation among several hundred.2. the citizens of the majority of the country don't pay anything because their nations are not paying.

MADNESS ! Send them home and find another international platform....the Mid-East or Europe since they like to vote against the U.S. so much, they can all get in the circle jerk !

The republican party is really in a tough spot. It's program for governing america is really not acceptable to anyone who thinks very carefully about politics. It would like to promote the greed of the wealthiest 1% of the world and lower the living standards of the rest of the people in the world. So its only natural base is really stupid people. This is why the republicans do well in the red-neck areas of the US. the Teaparty was filled with people whose understanding of politica was only slogan deep.

The leaders of the republican party like Karl Rove are just manipulaters. They spend all their time trying to keep the followers dazed and confused.

I just don't see much of a future for the republican party. Sorry, but it is just a dinosaur from the guilded age now wallowing in the La Brea Tar Pits. \

I should have expanded on my thoughts. Actually, I agree w/ you that a "more mature" approach needs to evolve from the U.S.

First mature step would be to pay only it's % as one of the total number of UN members. Second mature step would be to withdraw foreign aid (especially since the US is borrowing the money it gives away). Next would be to apply whatever aid we give to foreign countries to aid to the needy in the U.S.

Once we treat our own properly, we could apply the rest of the withdrawn foreign aid to our national debt !!

@moafuyahoo.com: That does sound like a more constructive step. Whatever the U.S. owes on UN dues should be paid in full; one way of withdrawing foreign aid is to stop supporting foreign elites in other countries, especially with military aid; speaking of the military, considering its over-bloated budget, major cuts would bring significant funds to chip in for the national debt as well as the needy. And for the latter two, raise taxes on those who have so much many they don't know what to do with it. They won't exactly go bankrupt, become homeless, or starve.

There's nothing wrong with questioning any organization and the UN has its problems, just like any large international organization. But to question it on the basis of stupidity (ignorance) or duplicity (lies) is ... stupid and duplicitous.

What should concern all of us is what is the underlying motives for this ongoing insanity. Perhaps the nuttiest of the lot like Bolton might believe some of this but even that is doubtful.

For certain the goals here and elsewhere are the continuing division of our nation. It serves the elites well. It inflames those who have abandoned reason and thinking for slogans and some crazy dogma. It reminds me of Nazi Germany in the 30's on an increasing scale. The choice to ignore that did not turn out too well.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.